- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations - Vaccines
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:26 am
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:26 am
“How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines.”
Date: September 9, 2025
Time: 2:00pm
Location: Senate Hart Building, SH-216
Forward to 00:41:13
The study’s official title: “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short- and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study.”
Mind you this is one study, but it is the largest vaccinated vs. unvaccinated birth cohort study ever conducted in the United States (sample size 18,468). Children were tracked from birth over a 10-year period. The data were drawn directly from electronic medical records — the gold standard for real-world health outcomes.
KEY FINDINGS
Compared to unvaccinated children, those who received one or more vaccines had dramatically higher rates of chronic illness:
329% more asthma
203% more atopic disease
496% more autoimmune disease
453% more neurodevelopmental disorders
• including 228% more developmental delays
• and 347% more speech disorders
Siri testified that all of these findings were statistically significant.
LINK
Date: September 9, 2025
Time: 2:00pm
Location: Senate Hart Building, SH-216
Forward to 00:41:13
The study’s official title: “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short- and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study.”
Mind you this is one study, but it is the largest vaccinated vs. unvaccinated birth cohort study ever conducted in the United States (sample size 18,468). Children were tracked from birth over a 10-year period. The data were drawn directly from electronic medical records — the gold standard for real-world health outcomes.
KEY FINDINGS
Compared to unvaccinated children, those who received one or more vaccines had dramatically higher rates of chronic illness:
329% more asthma
203% more atopic disease
496% more autoimmune disease
453% more neurodevelopmental disorders
• including 228% more developmental delays
• and 347% more speech disorders
Siri testified that all of these findings were statistically significant.
LINK
8
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:35 am to winkchance
No causation here for me, and I’m not necessarily disputing the findings, but to me:
Kids who get vaccinated likely have parents willing to go to the doctor more, whereas the cohort of children whose parents don’t believe in vaccinations largely believe less in organized medicine in general and therefore get diagnosed with these conditions much less frequently.
Kids who get vaccinated likely have parents willing to go to the doctor more, whereas the cohort of children whose parents don’t believe in vaccinations largely believe less in organized medicine in general and therefore get diagnosed with these conditions much less frequently.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:35 am to winkchance
nice info
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:37 am to TigerReich
quote:
TigerReich
I might suggest watching the testimony.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:39 am to winkchance
I couldn’t give less a shite about this red herring issue than I currently do and watching live testimony from political shills won’t change that opinion. But thanks for pointing this out as a massive issue of yours. Sorry you care so much about this.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:40 am to winkchance
quote:
Date: September 9, 2025
Time: 2:00pm
Relies this was yesterday and not one MSM outlet reported on it.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:42 am to TigerReich
quote:
I couldn’t give less a shite about this red herring
Odd melt. it is information provided by doctors based on studies that people said did not exist, but did exist.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:57 am to winkchance
Question:
Can your brain comprehend the fact that someone who doesn’t do something as simple as childhood vaccines is much much much more likely to never go to the doctor at all?
For example, vaccinated child has slight breathing trouble or non verbal at 4 years old: that parent is very likely going to a doctor and now be diagnosed with asthma or autism
Unvaxxed child is far far less likely to go to the doctor for the exact same symptoms. So, just because they don’t get diagnosed means they don’t have it?
Also, the vaccinated cohort had far less neurological issues and less cancer. So vaccines are good for the brain and prevent cancer?
Can your brain comprehend the fact that someone who doesn’t do something as simple as childhood vaccines is much much much more likely to never go to the doctor at all?
For example, vaccinated child has slight breathing trouble or non verbal at 4 years old: that parent is very likely going to a doctor and now be diagnosed with asthma or autism
Unvaxxed child is far far less likely to go to the doctor for the exact same symptoms. So, just because they don’t get diagnosed means they don’t have it?
Also, the vaccinated cohort had far less neurological issues and less cancer. So vaccines are good for the brain and prevent cancer?
This post was edited on 9/10/25 at 11:58 am
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:01 pm to winkchance
quote:
Siri testified that all of these findings were statistically significant.
Why should I believe her when she can’t even get my talk-to-text written properly?
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:05 pm to winkchance
Dude definitely follows this. He was quick to post and copied and pasted his first response from an article he read on The Guardian. What a loser.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:06 pm to winkchance
quote:
KEY FINDINGS Compared to unvaccinated children, those who received one or more vaccines had dramatically higher rates of chronic illness
You have to be careful in interpretation with studies like these because they involve such a large set of data, larger variables may come to into play:
- How often did they see the doctor?
- What are environmental factors? For instance, the Ohio Valley has higher rates of cancer for a lot of different non-vaccine reasons.
- What are the financial factors? How many come from more affluent homes with better healthcare access?
- Are we comparing rural vs urban and those exposures? Hell, there’s even a difference in asthma diagnosis within my own city.
I don’t want to see a committee testimony. I want to see links to the actual research itself.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:06 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Can your brain comprehend the fact that someone who doesn’t do something as simple as childhood vaccines is much much much more likely to never go to the doctor at all?
It certainly can, but the Ford study did sensitivity analysis for that very purpose and found that not to be the case.
That question actually comes up in the testimony.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:09 pm to BluegrassBelle
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:16 pm to winkchance
quote:
The study itself was blocked from being published - it may become published now
So then you don't have the actual data from the study. Well, that's convenient.
quote:
They list them in the written testimony as footnotes.
Not links to the actual research (as you have explained above). They did include the abstract though, which is helpful:
quote:
We lacked information on socioeconomic status, or
potentially relevant post birth factors, such as diet or lifestyle, but
did adjust for several important baseline confounders such as gender,
ethnicity, gestational age and birthweight.
So right out of the gate they didn't have information on major variables that could influence the results of the study. Socioeconomic status and relevant post birth factors is a HUGE miss on a study like that.
That renders it largely invalid on just that alone.
And then there's grouping all vaccines together in comparison. So there's no delineation in whether it's X vaccine or another that is causing the increase. That's a huge issue as well.
ETA: It was also from one large study in Michigan.
quote:
Setting: Integrated healthcare system in Michigan.
Participants: 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016 enrolled
in the health system insurance plan.
You can't apply that to populations across the United States because it's, again, not taking into consideration post-birth factors that aren't the vaccinations.
This post was edited on 9/10/25 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:20 pm to BluegrassBelle
It’s interesting that the response in this thread by the “medical regulars of the OT” regarding the fact that the study was shelved is… oh well.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:21 pm to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
It’s interesting that the response in this thread by the “medical regulars of the OT” regarding the fact that the study was shelved is… oh well.
Given it's issues with validity and reliability, my guess is it got shelved because it wasn't a very good study. It doesn't account for basic variables that would be considered for someone in a research undergrad, much less someone publishing.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:25 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
You can't apply that to populations across the United States because it's, again, not taking into consideration post-birth factors that aren't the vaccinations.
So the correct response as a medical professional to this is HIDE THE FINDINGS QUICK?
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:27 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Given it's issues with validity and reliability, my guess is it got shelved because it wasn't a very good study. It doesn't account for basic variables that would be considered for someone in a research undergrad, much less someone publishing.
That’s not what they testified to. They testified that peers refused to submit for publication because they felt they would be let go from their jobs if they did.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:27 pm to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
So the correct response as a medical professional to this is HIDE THE FINDINGS QUICK?
You do realize every scientific research study doesn't get published right? It's not some grand conspiracy.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 12:29 pm to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
That’s not what they testified to. They testified that peers refused to submit for publication because they felt they would be let go from their jobs if they did.
Again, you provided part of the studies that weren't published. And they don't account for literally anything that wasn't vaccinations in their studies.
On that alone, they're not even valid research. To claim they'd lose their jobs is an easy out for why their stuff didn't get published.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News